HIV/AIDS intertwines gender, death, tears, and illness in a way that can be interpreted differently depending on mechanisms, biases, prejudices, and different goals.

AIDS has been used to shame groups (and is still being used). Attention in this area has been focused on discoveries and technological and scientific solutions. We want to believe that there are quick technical ways to solve this problem. And if there are, we can buy them; use them and continue our lives. But this is a mistake, especially when it comes to HIV/AIDS.

The complex issue of sustainable development is related to justice and equality. We need to understand the underlying causes. Achieving quality health is not easy and requires political interventions.

AIDS has become politicized. This issue, especially in regards to South Africa, has more implications. The idea of AIDS as a security threat was raised in the year 2000 at the American Security Council. “Securitizing” this disease, especially in its military sense, was exaggerated. However, in the broader sense of human security, its impact is significant and has far-reaching consequences.

Until now, little attention has been paid to the political implications of AIDS. While this disease affects representation, electoral processes, and political connections and social movements in response to the epidemic.

The initial date of AIDS was recorded with media exaggeration. How many cases of AIDS existed? Where were these cases located? Who were the infected individuals and what was the cause of their infection?

The primary cases of AIDS in the West were recognized as groups with specific common behaviors; such as gay men, drug addicts, and specific ethnicities like Haitians in America or those who had received contaminated blood products.

Among the ways that HIV was transmitted, the focus was on ways that remained unknown to the public, not on well-known factors.

Information about intentional ways of transmitting AIDS was completely political. No country wanted to be identified as an epidemic country in terms of AIDS.

The most notorious example in this field was the manipulation of statistics in the late 1980s. Zimbabwe, in order to have lower AIDS statistics compared to South Africa, provided false information about the number of infected individuals in their country. When South Africa reported 120 cases of AIDS in their country, Zimbabwe reported 119 cases to the World Health Organization.

We must see what will happen in the worst possible scenario with AIDS. In Botswana in 2002, it was predicted that if there were no major behavioral changes and medical advancements, 80% of 15-year-old boys would die from AIDS – the statistics for girls were even higher – but it was not publicly announced because it was too distressing.

How can AIDS cause a country to collapse? Zimbabwe still exists, as well as Malawi. South Africa and Uganda have experienced economic growth and have gone through the process of nation-building despite the AIDS epidemic.

AIDS has not yet been recognized as a factor in the failure of a country, as the impact of the epidemic has not been fully felt. Societies are adaptable, while the direct link between AIDS and politics is difficult to identify and measure, there are reasons to be concerned about the indirect relationship between the two. Social scientists introduce three fundamental factors for strengthening and consolidating democratic governance: first, it is more difficult to maintain democracy for poorer countries, and unequal economic agreements severely threaten democratic processes. Second, strong political institutions, including civil, judicial, and executive services, are necessary. And third, attitudes matter – people must want democracy. AIDS can affect all of these factors.

AIDS is not considered a threat in the wealthy world, where it is mostly limited to specific identities and marginalized populations; rather, it is referred to as a chronic and manageable disease. However, if a growing number of people infected with AIDS migrate to developed countries, these individuals are the ones who do not have access to necessary medication in their own countries, and this changes everything.

In countries where access to healthcare is a right, there is a debate about who should receive medical treatment and healthcare. The focus of global AIDS policies in wealthy countries will be on this issue, as well as the topic of investment.